People v. Santoyo CA2/6

Filed 8/17/22 P. v. Santoyo CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B313334 (Super. Ct. No. 2008012962) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

MANUEL SANTOYO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Manuel Santoyo appeals the denial of a recommendation by the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to recall his sentence under former Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1).1 Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by failing to allow him to submit additional information relevant to the recall decision. The Attorney General agrees. We reverse and remand with directions.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

Factual and Procedural History In October 2010, appellant pled guilty to one count of attempted murder with the personal use of a firearm. (§§ 664/187, subd. (a).) He was sentenced to 19 years in state prison. In December 2020, the Secretary of the CDCR sent a letter to the trial court recommending it recall and reconsider appellant’s sentence on the basis that he was at “particularly high risk” of serious medical complications if he contracted COVID-19. The letter also stated that appellant’s case warranted further review because he had served the base term of his sentence and recent statutory amendments made the firearm component of his sentence discretionary rather than mandatory. In a written order dated April 2, 2021, the trial court rejected the Secretary’s request for recall and resentencing. The trial court stated it had reviewed the court file, the cumulative case summary attached to the CDCR letter, the probation and sentencing report and the written motions filed in the case. The trial court acknowledged the health risk cited by the CDCR but explained, “[t]his was an egregious and violent” crime. The victim had his back to appellant when appellant, without provocation, pressed a loaded .38 revolver into the victim’s ribs and threatened to kill him. The victim and appellant struggled as appellant repeatedly tried to pull the trigger of the gun. The “only reason the victim was not shot was that [his] finger was caught between the [hammer] and the gun.” The trial court concluded it was “not of the opinion that circumstances of the crime or the postconviction factors outlined in the Department’s cumulative case summary mitigate the circumstances to such a degree as to conclude it would be in the interest of justice to recall and reduce [appellant’s] sentence.”